If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Really. What about religion demands it to be irrational? I consider myself rational and believe in religion. Isaac Newton considered himself rational and believed in God.

ir·ra·tion·al (-rsh-nl)
adj.
1.
a. Not endowed with reason.
b. Affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent, as from shock.
c. Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment: an irrational dislike.
2.
a. Being a syllable in Greek and Latin prosody whose length does not fit the metric pattern.
b. Being a metric foot containing such a syllable.
3. Mathematics Of or relating to an irrational number.

ra·tion·al (rsh-nl)
adj.
1. Having or exercising the ability to reason.
2. Of sound mind; sane.
3. Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior. See Synonyms at logical.
4. Mathematics Capable of being expressed as a quotient of integers.

everyone has a philosophy, yes, but a religion? no. religion is a matter of faith, there are many philosophies that do not include, or outright object to faith.

yeah, there are. and yes, on the topic of religion they are just as unreasonable as anyone else who believes things without reason.

yes, living a life where you accept reason and evidence to form your worldview, and living a life believing things which you can have no reason to believe, yes, those are mutually exclusive. Meh, for some people the physical, corporeal world is separate from their spiritual life. Like I said before, science and nature are the tools, doesn't mean you can't study and have an in-depth understanding of the tools. Just out of curiosity, if they had a life experience which they were absolutely unable to scientifically explain, some sort of spiritual moment, would it then continue to be unreasonable of them?

but, people are hypocrites, it happens.

That depends entirely on what definition you choose to look at. Some definitions define that they are exactly the same, while others state they are different due to the existence of "rituals" in religion and a few others say that "faith" is the dividing line. I don't really think there is any significant difference, they both establish rules and morals for how one should live life, behave and treat others.

I edited my previous post to supplement my position.

HARDY HAR HAR!

And we're just gonna put a happy little bush in the corner right there, and it'll be our little secret. AND IF YOU TELL ANYONE! THAT, THAT BUSH IS THERE! I WILL COME TO YOUR HOUSE! AND I WILL CUT YOU!

That depends entirely on what definition you choose to look at. Some definitions define that they are exactly the same, while others state they are different due to the existence of "rituals" in religion and a few others say that "faith" is the dividing line. I don't really think there is any significant difference, they both establish rules and morals for how one should live life, behave and treat others.

I edited my previous post to supplement my position.

no, science does not have established rules and morals for how one should live life. philosophies that draw from science, like humanism, naturalism etc etc do.

ir·ra·tion·al (-rsh-nl)
adj.
1.
a. Not endowed with reason.
b. Affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent, as from shock.
c. Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment: an irrational dislike.
2.
a. Being a syllable in Greek and Latin prosody whose length does not fit the metric pattern.
b. Being a metric foot containing such a syllable.
3. Mathematics Of or relating to an irrational number.

ra·tion·al (rsh-nl)
adj.
1. Having or exercising the ability to reason.
2. Of sound mind; sane.
3. Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior. See Synonyms at logical.
4. Mathematics Capable of being expressed as a quotient of integers.

faith, is irrational. religion is irrational.

if it were rational, then you would not need faith to believe.

So who gets to decide if something is consisten with or based on reason? I am telling you that religion can be arrived at through reason and logic. You are arguing it cannot. Without supporting premises you are attempting to claim an authority of what you consider rational over what I do. By your own argument that would be evil.

So who gets to decide if something is consisten with or based on reason? I am telling you that religion can be arrived at through reason and logic. You are arguing it cannot. Without supporting premises you are attempting to claim an authority of what you consider rational over what I do. By your own argument that would be evil.

how do you reason you way to

1. a god
2. that god is the christian god
3. that god had a son
4. the bible is an accurate representation of that sons life/death

i'd like logic, mathematics, data and repeatable experiment on all 4 points.

if you can do that, i will grant you that you can reason your way to religion.

1. a god
2. that god is the christian god
3. that god had a son
4. the bible is an accurate representation of that sons life/death

i'd like logic, mathematics, data and repeatable experiment on all 4 points.

if you can do that, i will grant you that you can reason your way to religion.

A). You said all religions.
B) I never said religion had to be the biblical Christian God
C) I never argued the bible was infallible.

How do you prove that a God, gods, or other supernatural power does not exist through empirical testing?

The point is you can no more disprove it than I can prove it. You want your conclusion to be more valid than my conclusion with no more proof. You want your argument to simply be more authoratative then the other because you argue it is. However without that proof you are demanding the same authority you are calling evil.

A). You said all religions.
B) I never said religion had to be the biblical Christian God
C) I never argued the bible was infallible.

How do you prove that a God, gods, or other supernatural power does not exist through empirical testing?

The point is you can no more disprove it than I can prove it. You want your conclusion to be more valid than my conclusion with no more proof. You want your argument to simply be more authoratative then the other because you argue it is. However without that proof you are demanding the same authority you are calling evil.

You can be wrong. I would not label it as evil

all religions start with step 1. just reason you way to a god, and i'll be happy. from there steps 2-4 can be for any particular religion you wish. just reason your way to a religion. you claimed you could do it, please try.

i don't have to disprove it. just like i don't have to disprove unicorns existing.

no, the rejection of faith as a method to determine accuracy is not the same as using faith as a method to determine accuracy.

sorry, you cannot say faithand science are equivalent in any way shape or form. one requires faith, the other rejects faith.

When did I say that faith could be used as a method to determine accuracy?

I said that religion and science can be used in similar ways to guide ones life, which I think most could agree with.

I don't agree with your definition of religion (in which FAITH is a requirement). There are differing definitions of religion (which I already discussed) depending on what text and interpretation you decide to pull from. Even with that one word of distinction, the similarities and parallels still remain.

The more I look around the world the more I am certain that it did not arise by chance. The more I learn the more I realize this is true. Consider the pictures of molecular biology, how the particles within our cells function with one another. Scale it up and look at the pictures and the similiarites to how universes interact. There is a pervasive sense of order in the world around us. The laws of physics that can predict particiles through formulas and only prove that existence at the development of better equipment shows this order. The formulas used to arrive at the location of planetary bodies such as Pluto (whatever its refernced as now) show that we are uniquely suited to understand the world around us through reason and logic. That our ability to reason is so in tune with how the world actually works tells me that there is a connection that ties us, those abilities, and the world as we know it around us, even the world that we do not know yet, together.

This is why I have faith in God. Not that God has paused the rules of nature around me and given me some great sign but that the rules of nature exist and we have even the slightest ability to understand those rules.

Science does not disprove to me the existence of a God. The more we understand the more it strengthens in to me the belief that God exists. I don't know exactly what God is. Perhaps its that little spark within all of us. Perhaps its the reason that so many accept that killing another human is just wrong before we know the complex theories. Perhaps its that spark of empathy that we can share with others. I believe that somehow God exists though I do not know how exactly to define God

Can I prove it? No. Does it use logic and reason to get there? The above statements are not irrational. It is as defensible as any argument that God does not exist.

The more I look around the world the more I am certain that it did not arise by chance. The more I learn the more I realize this is true. Consider the pictures of molecular biology, how the particles within our cells function with one another. Scale it up and look at the pictures and the similiarites to how universes interact. There is a pervasive sense of order in the world around us. The laws of physics that can predict particiles through formulas and only prove that existence at the development of better equipment shows this order. The formulas used to arrive at the location of planetary bodies such as Pluto (whatever its refernced as now) show that we are uniquely suited to understand the world around us through reason and logic. That our ability to reason is so in tune with how the world actually works tells me that there is a connection that ties us, those abilities, and the world as we know it around us, even the world that we do not know yet, together.

This is why I have faith in God. Not that God has paused the rules of nature around me and given me some great sign but that the rules of nature exist and we have even the slightest ability to understand those rules.

Science does not disprove to me the existence of a God. The more we understand the more it strengthens in to me the belief that God exists. I don't know exactly what God is. Perhaps its that little spark within all of us. Perhaps its the reason that so many accept that killing another human is just wrong before we know the complex theories. Perhaps its that spark of empathy that we can share with others. I believe that somehow God exists though I do not know how exactly to define God

Can I prove it? No. Does it use logic and reason to get there? The above statements are not irrational. It is as defensible as any argument that God does not exist.

When did I say that faith could be used as a method to determine accuracy?

I said that religion and science can be used in similar ways to guide ones life, which I think most could agree with.

I don't agree with your definition of religion (in which FAITH is a requirement). There are differing definitions of religion (which I already discussed) depending on what text and interpretation you decide to pull from. Even with that one word of distinction, the similarities and parallels still remain.

all religion requires faith, they can be used interchangeably.

so if you disagree with religion requiring faith, please tell me about a religion that does not require faith.

and loh still has to explain to me how he has reasoned his way to a god.

you guys got a lot of explaining to do!

Originally Posted by Lohman446

The more I look around the world the more I am certain that it did not arise by chance. The more I learn the more I realize this is true. Consider the pictures of molecular biology, how the particles within our cells function with one another. Scale it up and look at the pictures and the similiarites to how universes interact. There is a pervasive sense of order in the world around us. The laws of physics that can predict particiles through formulas and only prove that existence at the development of better equipment shows this order. The formulas used to arrive at the location of planetary bodies such as Pluto (whatever its refernced as now) show that we are uniquely suited to understand the world around us through reason and logic. That our ability to reason is so in tune with how the world actually works tells me that there is a connection that ties us, those abilities, and the world as we know it around us, even the world that we do not know yet, together.

This is why I have faith in God. Not that God has paused the rules of nature around me and given me some great sign but that the rules of nature exist and we have even the slightest ability to understand those rules.

Science does not disprove to me the existence of a God. The more we understand the more it strengthens in to me the belief that God exists. I don't know exactly what God is. Perhaps its that little spark within all of us. Perhaps its the reason that so many accept that killing another human is just wrong before we know the complex theories. Perhaps its that spark of empathy that we can share with others. I believe that somehow God exists though I do not know how exactly to define God

Can I prove it? No. Does it use logic and reason to get there? The above statements are not irrational. It is as defensible as any argument that God does not exist.

there is just so much wrong in this post i don't even know where to start, so im going to take a bullet point approach to this non-sense.

no one has said the world arose by chance.

you are imposing your view of "organization" on the universe. by any measure, the universe IS CHAOS. pure, unadulterated chaos. even earth itself is a bad place to be. less then a half a percent of earths volume is livable for humans. this is organization? we have observed and scanned very thoroughly of life, what ... 150 light years out? of that sphere, even if you say there was life on mars ..... thats something like 10^-15 percent of what we know about the universe could contain life. this is organization to you? god sure sucks at ordering things.

how does universal laws prove a god? if the universe can exist without a god, and "order" itself, how is this a proof of god?

and then you still end with faith. so you have not reasoned your way to a god. you have faith there is a god because of an incorrect worldview.

and i already dealt with why we innately know killing is wrong - evolution. it does not serve the population to have us killing each other for unjustified reasons. do you wonder why **** smells? evolution. the lifeforms that sat around in there own **** died, the ones thought it was gross, lived. we are there ancestors. we think **** smells because we are the decedents of those who thought **** smelled.

so i ask again, reason you way to a god. show me data, evidence, and logic to prove a god. not to mention, since you have failed at #1 .... what does that say about the rest of your beliefs and how irrational they are?

so if you disagree with religion requiring faith, please tell me about a religion that does not require faith.

and loh still has to explain to me how he has reasoned his way to a god.

you guys got a lot of explaining to do!

there is just so much wrong in this post i don't even know where to start, so im going to take a bullet point approach to this non-sense.

no one has said the world arose by chance.

you are imposing your view of "organization" on the universe. by any measure, the universe IS CHAOS. pure, unadulterated chaos. even earth itself is a bad place to be. less then a half a percent of earths volume is livable for humans. this is organization? we have observed and scanned very thoroughly of life, what ... 150 light years out? of that sphere, even if you say there was life on mars ..... thats something like 10^-15 percent of what we know about the universe could contain life. this is organization to you? god sure sucks at ordering things.

how does universal laws prove a god? if the universe can exist without a god, and "order" itself, how is this a proof of god?

and then you still end with faith. so you have not reasoned your way to a god. you have faith there is a god because of an incorrect worldview.

and i already dealt with why we innately know killing is wrong - evolution. it does not serve the population to have us killing each other for unjustified reasons. do you wonder why **** smells? evolution. the lifeforms that sat around in there own **** died, the ones thought it was gross, lived. we are there ancestors. we think **** smells because we are the decedents of those who thought **** smelled.

so i ask again, reason you way to a god. show me data, evidence, and logic to prove a god. not to mention, since you have failed at #1 .... what does that say about the rest of your beliefs and how irrational they are?

CP soooo you dont believe in the human spirit or "ghosts" or supernatural forces ? Have you been able to explain everything you have ever seen ? If God and the devil do not exhist then there is no good or evil only choices made by man ?
Not to nitpick but if the devil doesnt exhist you cant really say "The devil is in the details" because he doesnt exhist. I apologize if you didnt say that I may be mistaken.

factually incorrect and not rational, both are objective and do not require an authority to determine.

and you still didn't reason your way to even gods existence, much less Easter bunnies and ho ho ho.

Originally Posted by Flatliner333

CP soooo you dont believe in the human spirit or "ghosts" or supernatural forces ? Have you been able to explain everything you have ever seen ? If God and the devil do not exhist then there is no good or evil only choices made by man ?
Not to nitpick but if the devil doesnt exhist you cant really say "The devil is in the details" because he doesnt exhist. I apologize if you didnt say that I may be mistaken.

no i do not believe in anything supernatural. and no i cannot explain everything i have seen, what would we need science for if not to try to figure out what we don't currently have an explanation for? thats what i do for a living, try to figure out things i cannot explain, that's what makes my job so much fun and that is why i love what i do.

just because we do not have an explanation for something, doesn't mean you get to make one up. this is why i before alluded to the intellectually lazy theist. because saying god did it, or ghosts or spirits or whatever the **** you want to make up did it, frees you from needing an actual explanation.

Originally Posted by Spider-TW

Would you say that? If not by chance, then what?

History has shown many times that our best equations are merely accurate representations of our local conditions. How do you prove something that you can only model?

we know quite a lot about how the universe and human existence came to be, where would you like to start? and no point in the story will i be required to say "and we just got lucky" to explain from the big bang to today.

"we just got here by chance" is a classic creationist strawman. we know quite a lot about the processes and reasons why the universe is the way it is today.

this statement does not make sense "how can you prove something that you can only model" a varifiably accurate model is what the goal of science and mathematics is. a model to explain and predict phenomenon so that we can manipulate that phenomena to our advantage.

[QUOTE=cockerpunk]what would we need science for if not to try to figure out what we don't currently have an explanation for? thats what i do for a living, try to figure out things i cannot explain, that's what makes my job so much fun and that is why i love what i do.

Finally something we can agree on. I do believe that science has done alot of good (and bad)for mankind but I am also a christian. And it is great to hear that you love what you do for a living as do I

CP wants his authority and reason to be valid and those that do not conform to his to be wrong.

In the process he labels religion as "evil". I don't believe he is as stupid as he comes off in these conversations I believe he is simply that arrogant and lacking of any degree of intellectual honesty.

As his assertion was that all religion was evil and he has not been able to back it with anything that resembles a premise (that he does not immediatly deny is evil) I find his ability to apply propositional logic poor at best. If the premises do not support the conclusion (IE its evil because of X but X is not evil) it is the logical fallacy of begging the question.

Can religion be good? Yes.

Rothbaum, Weisz, and Snyder in explaining the two-process model held that religion was one possible replacement when locus of control was threatened (1982). This was built off of early writings that control helped to psychologically buffer people from feelings of randomness and chaos that were in fact detrimental to them (Antonovsky, 1979). Further studies have strengthened the value of religion to psychological health and shown, throw empirical psychological testing, that God (or gods, or another nonhuman entity) does provide an alternative locus of control when personal control is threatened (Kay, Gaucher, Callan, Napier, and Laurin 2008).

Now CP can sit there and whine about it and tell us all about his knowledge of the empirical sciences. The above information was readily found from the project I did for my capstone course in Psychology. He can whine about the lack of logic all he wants - I figure I should mail him my coursework from my study of propositional logic. He can demand the empirical testing that shows the positive value of religion - which I have provided. I would simply request that he provide similiar evidence that religion is inherently evil, as was his initial assertion. He can demand that we simply grant him authority to decide what is rational and logical. His title of "engineer" does not make him an expert. At best he simply is not good at expressing an opinion. In reality he is likely either trolling or is actually that full of himself that he thinks we should treat him as some subject matter expert in all things. The end, reasonable decision, would be to activate the ignore feature.

so if you disagree with religion requiring faith, please tell me about a religion that does not require faith.

You can't have it both ways, CP.

You say faith is irrational when it concerns our religion, but when you espouse having faith in humanity, it's suddenly not irrational. But since your whole disagreement on my point seems to hinge on your definition of each of the words, lets look them over.

re·li·gion [ri-lij-uh n]noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices

I don't see anything in this definition that disqualifies any of what I said.

Faith
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

Well look at that, definition #3 fits you just right. Yes, it may say "especially a system of religious beliefs" but that's not a disqualifier, it's just an example.

So yes, I'll stick with my argument: that one's belief in the laws of science and the derived philosophies, such as humanism can be a form of religion.

Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of “ultimate concern” that for her occupy a “place parallel to that filled by God in traditionally religious persons,” those beliefs represent her religion.

The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being ......

As the case of United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 64 S. Ct. 882, 88 L. Ed. 1148 (1944), demonstrates, the Supreme Court must look to the sincerity of a person's beliefs to help decide if those beliefs constitute a religion that deserves constitutional protection..

If you go into any dictionary, the core nutshell definition of "religion" is essentially, "a set of beliefs that one believes in and adheres to". The fact that some dictionaries include the word "faith" and some don't just goes to show that it's obviously not a "make or break" word, even though you may try to twist it into one.

The bottom line, until a FIRM definition of religion is established by a recognized authority (not you), you're only voicing your opinion, which I (and the 7th CC of Appeals) will probably continue to disagree with.

we know quite a lot about how the universe and human existence came to be, where would you like to start? and no point in the story will i be required to say "and we just got lucky" to explain from the big bang to today.

CP wants his authority and reason to be valid and those that do not conform to his to be wrong.

never have i said anything like that, in fact the exact opposite

In the process he labels religion as "evil". I don't believe he is as stupid as he comes off in these conversations I believe he is simply that arrogant and lacking of any degree of intellectual honesty.

false

As his assertion was that all religion was evil and he has not been able to back it with anything that resembles a premise (that he does not immediatly deny is evil) I find his ability to apply propositional logic poor at best. If the premises do not support the conclusion (IE its evil because of X but X is not evil) it is the logical fallacy of begging the question.

false, i have listed more then a half dozen reasons, and defended them against your counter points successfully every time.

Can religion be good? Yes.

Rothbaum, Weisz, and Snyder in explaining the two-process model held that religion was one possible replacement when locus of control was threatened (1982). This was built off of early writings that control helped to psychologically buffer people from feelings of randomness and chaos that were in fact detrimental to them (Antonovsky, 1979). Further studies have strengthened the value of religion to psychological health and shown, throw empirical psychological testing, that God (or gods, or another nonhuman entity) does provide an alternative locus of control when personal control is threatened (Kay, Gaucher, Callan, Napier, and Laurin 2008).

i never said religion couldn't be used to justify good. but it can be used to justify evil, and good is self justifying, so why do you need religion at all?

Now CP can sit there and whine about it and tell us all about his knowledge of the empirical sciences. The above information was readily found from the project I did for my capstone course in Psychology. He can whine about the lack of logic all he wants - I figure I should mail him my coursework from my study of propositional logic. He can demand the empirical testing that shows the positive value of religion - which I have provided. I would simply request that he provide similiar evidence that religion is inherently evil, as was his initial assertion. He can demand that we simply grant him authority to decide what is rational and logical. His title of "engineer" does not make him an expert. At best he simply is not good at expressing an opinion. In reality he is likely either trolling or is actually that full of himself that he thinks we should treat him as some subject matter expert in all things. The end, reasonable decision, would be to activate the ignore feature.

amazingly, i have used nothing more then a high schools education in biology and cosmology to demonstrate your world view as false

so what does that say about your world view, if it takes only a high school level understanding of biology, the big bang, and chemistry to prove yours false? i am by no means an expert on any of these topics, and yet you grant me that status, only to mock it.

what that really is doing is mocking your own understanding and world view.

kinda scary.

Originally Posted by Spider-TW

pre-big bang. something exists (or not)

thats a good question. the big bang was the source of existence itself (time, matter, energy, space ...). what ... if anything .... existed before existence? what does this mean about laws we understand in our universe such as logic, cause and effect, and reason?

Originally Posted by dahoeb

You can't have it both ways, CP.

You say faith is irrational when it concerns our religion, but when you espouse having faith in humanity, it's suddenly not irrational. But since your whole disagreement on my point seems to hinge on your definition of each of the words, lets look them over.

re·li·gion [ri-lij-uh n]noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices

I don't see anything in this definition that disqualifies any of what I said.

Faith
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

Well look at that, definition #3 fits you just right. Yes, it may say "especially a system of religious beliefs" but that's not a disqualifier, it's just an example.

So yes, I'll stick with my argument: that one's belief in the laws of science and the derived philosophies, such as humanism can be a form of religion.

Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of “ultimate concern” that for her occupy a “place parallel to that filled by God in traditionally religious persons,” those beliefs represent her religion.

The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being ......

As the case of United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 64 S. Ct. 882, 88 L. Ed. 1148 (1944), demonstrates, the Supreme Court must look to the sincerity of a person's beliefs to help decide if those beliefs constitute a religion that deserves constitutional protection..

If you go into any dictionary, the core nutshell definition of "religion" is essentially, "a set of beliefs that one believes in and adheres to". The fact that some dictionaries include the word "faith" and some don't just goes to show that it's obviously not a "make or break" word, even though you may try to twist it into one.

The bottom line, until a FIRM definition of religion is established by a recognized authority (not you), you're only voicing your opinion, which I (and the 7th CC of Appeals) will probably continue to disagree with.

i was using faith in a colloquial term. one might say they have faith that when they sit in a chair it wont break, but that is a different kind of faith then a faith in god. the reason is of course that we have experience with chairs, and most of the time they don't break. we can see and inspect the chair, and if it looks like it wont hold us and we sit on it, we may not be surprised when it breaks.

this is the colloquial version of faith. i have this faith in people, because in my experience and in my studies of humanity, when given good information, rational people will make the best decisions they can.

this is a different kind of faith then one of an unknowable, unseeable, unprovable concept such as god.

and thanks for the definitions of religion, i already told you mine, and clarified exactly where they might disagree with yours.

Originally Posted by going_home

1) Why dont you prove you have a brain ?

i have seen and touched human brains before

Have you seen your brain ?

yes

If you cant show it to us we refuse to believe you have one.

pretty easy to show it, via operation, implication, scans, biopsy etc etc. heck, i might even have my old MRIs from a few years ago.

You have absolutely zero proof that you have a brain, zero son.

i have every bit of proof i need

Because that would take faith for us to believe you have a brain.

false premise #1

2) When you start your car in the morning you realize it takes faith to do that ?

no, it just takes a turn of the key

The faith you have that your car will start,
thats how much faith it takes to know there is a true and living God.

so i have 10 years of my life, every day walking out, sitting in god, turning gods key, and god doing what i tell it to do?

thats interesting.

that makes my 5 years of study on race car dynamics and high performance driving rather interesting. you know all those testable predictions and there subsequent rejection or acceptance of hypothesis ....

i can do that with god?

i will give you a challenge. i know, that the higher damping rates you put on the front suspension of the car, the longer the time constant to steady state. i know this from the math, from experiment, and from person experience.

name one such testable idea in regards to god?

Can you tell me how this apple tastes that I'm eating now ?

i can, as i have eaten many apples. was it a sweet or sour apple?

Neither can you tell me about my God.

thats because i have no experience with god, and you don't either

You've never known Him.

since he will not submit to examination and his followers cannot give any testable predictions, sorry, i can;t know about god, and neither can you

PSALMS 34:8
O taste and see that the LORD [is] good: blessed [is] the man [that] trusteth in him.

i am also still waiting on loh reasoning his way to a god. if it is a rational concept, faith, please, reason your way to a god.

If you feel that everyone around you is irrational perhaps the problem is not everyone else. You have failed to compile any reasonable argument to support your initial conclusion that you were called on that religion was inherently evil. Its only morbid curiousity at this point that has prevented me from simply activating the ignore feature. Your own arguments, both this one and previous, have indicated that you do not have the knowledge or expertise required to question my rationale or logic or for that matter anyone elses.

If you feel that everyone around you is irrational perhaps the problem is not everyone else. You have failed to compile any reasonable argument to support your initial conclusion that you were called on that religion was inherently evil. Its only morbid curiousity at this point that has prevented me from simply activating the ignore feature. Your own arguments, both this one and previous, have indicated that you do not have the knowledge or expertise required to question my rationale or logic or for that matter anyone elses.

irrational isn't an insult. irrational is merely a category. there are rational things and irrational things. religion is an irrational one. most people are irrational on some level, even i am. i love, old, junky, kluged together things, despite pursuing technical perfection every day of my life. this is irrational, and thats just fine with me. i wouldn't have it any other way. i drive 80s turbo cars, because i love turbo lag, i shoot autocockers, because i love to turn knobs. not to mention, majority by no means establishes truth. there was an age when everyone knew the world was flat after all.

i listed more then half a dozen reasons religion is inherently evil, and instead of trying to argue with them, you just keep saying "You have failed to compile any reasonable argument to support your initial conclusion that you were called on that religion was inherently evil." well thats great if you think that, but you also have not provided a single valid counter argument to the reasons i have listed! instead keep just repeating that i haven't shown anything, and then refusing to respond to my many examples. its like arguing with a fox news host, wrong on every detail, but still claims the initial claim.

you also claimed that you could reason your way to a god, you have not done this. i look forward to you doing this. i think the entire intellectual and philosophical community would be interested in your proof of a god, as it has so far eluded humanity since the dawn of time.